Mediaboss Marketing

Say the government urges various intermediariesbookstores, billboard companies, payment processors, social media platformsto stop carrying certain speech. The government isn't prosecuting them or suing them, just asking them. (This is in the news both with regard to the Biden Administration "flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation" and Donald Trump's lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to the extent they claim government officials' speech pressured those platforms into blocking him.) Is such government urging constitutional?

[A.] Generally speaking, courts have said "yes, that's fine," so long as the government speech doesn't coerce the intermediaries by threatening prosecution, lawsuit, or various forms of retaliation. (Indeed, I understand that government officials not uncommonly ask newspapers, for instance, not to publish certain information that they say would harm national security or interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.) Here's a sample of appellate cases so holding:

[1.] A New York City official sent a letter urging department stores not to carry "a board game titled 'Public AssistanceWhy Bother Working for a Living.'" The letter said the game "does a grave injustice to taxpayers and welfare clients alike," and closes with, "Your cooperation in keeping this game off the shelves of your stores would be a genuine public service." Not unconstitutional, said the Second Circuit in Hammerhead Enterprises, Inc. v. Brezenoff (1983):

[T]he record indicates that Brezenoff's request to New York department stores to refrain from carrying Public Assistance was nothing more than a well-reasoned and sincere entreaty in support of his own political perspective. Where comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official's request, a valid claim can be stated. [But] appellants cannot establish that this case involves either of these troubling situations.

[2.] The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography sent letters to various corporations (such as 7-Eleven) urging them not to sell pornographic magazines:

The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography has held six hearings across the United States during the past seven months on issues related to pornography. During the hearing in Los Angeles, in October 1985, the Commission received testimony alleging that your company is involved in the sale or distribution of pornography. The Commission has determined that it would be appropriate to allow your company an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to drafting its final report section on identified distributors.

You will find a copy of the relevant testimony enclosed herewith. Please review the allegations and advise the Commission on or before March 3, 1986, if you disagree with the statements enclosed. Failure to respond will necessarily be accepted as an indication of no objection.

Please call Ms. Genny McSweeney, Attorney, at (202) 724-7837 if you have any questions.Thank you for your assistance.

Not unconstitutional, said the D.C. Circuit in Penthouse Int'l v. Meese (1991):

In our case, the Advisory Commission had no tie to prosecutorial power nor authority to censor publications. The letter it sent contained no threat to prosecute, nor intimation of intent to proscribe the distribution of the publications. And the Supreme Court has never found a government abridgement of First Amendment rights in the absence of some actual or threatened imposition of governmental power or sanction.

We do not see why government officials may not vigorously criticize a publication for any reason they wish. As part of the duties of their office, these officials surely must be expected to be free to speak out to criticize practices, even in a condemnatory fashion, that they might not have the statutory or even constitutional authority to regulate. If the First Amendment were thought to be violated any time a private citizen's speech or writings were criticized by a government official, those officials might be virtually immobilized.

[3.] A New York state legislator and a New York Congressman accused X-Men Security, a security organization connected to the Nation of Islam, of various conspiracies, "asked government agencies to conduct investigations into its operations, questioned X-Men's eligibility for an award of a contract supported by public funds, and advocated that X-Men not be retained." X-Men lost certain security contracts as a result. Not unconstitutional, said the Second Circuit in X-Men Security, Inc. v. Pataki (1999):

[J]ust as the First Amendment protects a legislator's right to communicate with administrative officials to provide assistance in securing a publicly funded contract, so too does it protect the legislator's right to state publicly his criticism of the granting of such a contract to a given entity and to urge to the administrators that such an award would contravene public policy. We see no basis on which X-Men could properly be found to have a constitutional right to prevent the legislators from exercising their own rights to speak.

[B.] On the other hand, where courts find that the government speech implicitly threatened retaliation, rather than simply exhorting or encouraging third parties to block speech, that's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case on that is Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963), where a state commission threatened to prosecute stores that sold books that it viewed as pornography (including books that were actually protected by the First Amendment). And lower court cases have applied that even absent express threat of prosecution, for instance:

[1.] The mayor and a trustee of a New York town sent a letter to a newspaper demanding to learn more about who was involved in an article critical of local officials. Potentially unconstitutional, the Second Circuit held in Rattner v. Netburn (1991):

Though the district court characterized the Netburn letter as simply a plea to the Chamber to rid itself of political affiliations, that letter stated that the recent Gazette "raises significant questions and concerns about the objectivity and trust which we are looking for from our business friends," and it asked "[w]ho wrote" the questions and requested "a list of those members who supported the inclusion of this 'article'." Further, the record includes evidence that, when questioned about the letter, Netburn also stated that he had made a list of the local businesses at which he regularly shopped. The district court's ruling that the language of the Netburn letter, either standing alone or in all the circumstances, is not a veiled threat of boycott or reprisal does not view that language in the light most favorable to Rattner as the nonmoving party.

[And] a threat was perceived and its impact was demonstrable. Several Chamber directors testified at their depositions that they viewed the letter as reminiscent of McCarthyism, threatening them with boycott or discriminatory enforcement of Village regulations if they permitted the publication of additional statements by Rattner; the Chamber member who had been "in charge of" theGazettetestified that following receipt of the Netburn letter, he had actually lost business and had been harassed by the Village.

Further, the Netburn letter caused the Chamber to cease publication of theGazette;and it advised Rattner of this decision while concealing from him the fact that another issue would be forthcoming, in order to avoid having to publish in that issue material for which he had already paid. Thus, the fact that Netburn's letter and statement "were not followed up with unannounced visits by police personnel" should hardly have been deemed dispositive since the Chamber immediately capitulated to what may reasonably be viewed as an implicit threat.

[2.] The President of the Borough of Staten Island sent a letter to a billboard company urging it to take down an anti-homosexuality billboard, which closed with:

Both you and the sponsor of this message should be aware that many members of the Staten Island community, myself included, find this message unnecessarily confrontational and offensive. As Borough President of Staten Island I want to inform you that this message conveys an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome in our Borough.

P.N.E. Media owns a number of billboards on Staten Island and derives substantial economic benefits from them. I call on you as a responsible member of the business community to please contact Daniel L. Master, my legal counsel and Chair of my Anti-Bias Task Force to discuss further the issues I have raised in this letter.

Potentially unconstitutional, the Second Circuit held in Okwedy v. Molinari (2003):

In the present case, a jury could find that Molinari's letter contained an implicit threat of retaliation if PNE failed to accede to Molinari's requests. In his letter, Molinari invoked his official authority as "Borough President of Staten Island" and pointed out that he was aware that "P.N.E. Media owns a number of billboards on Staten Island and derives substantial economic benefits from them." He then "call[ed] on" PNE to contact Daniel L. Master, whom he identified as his "legal counsel and Chair of my Anti-Bias Task Force."

Based on this letter, PNE could reasonably have believed that Molinari intended to use his official power to retaliate against it if it did not respond positively to his entreaties. Even though Molinari lacked direct regulatory control over billboards, PNE could reasonably have feared that Molinari would use whatever authority he does have, as Borough President, to interfere with the "substantial economic benefits" PNE derived from its billboards in Staten Island.

[3.] The Sheriff of Cook County (Illinois) sent letters to Mastercard and Visa saying,

As the Sheriff of Cook County, a father and a caring citizen, I write to request that your institution immediately cease and desist from allowing your credit cards to be used to place ads on websites like Backpage.com [which hosted ads for sex-related services].

Potentially unconstitutional, the Seventh Circuit held in Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart (2015); the court went through the Sheriff's letter in detail, and concluded:

And here's the kicker: "Within the next week, please provide me with contact information for an individual within your organization that I can work with [harass, pester] on this issue." The "I" is Sheriff Dart, not private citizen Dart the letter was signed by "Thomas Dart, Cook County Sheriff."

And the letter was not merely an expression of Sheriff Dart's opinion. It was designed to compel the credit card companies to act by inserting Dart into the discussion; he'll be chatting them up.

Further insight into the purpose and likely effect of such a letter is provided by a strategy memo written by a member of the sheriff's staff in advance of the letter. The memo suggested approaching the credit card companies (whether by phone, mail, email, or a visit in person) with threats in the form of "reminders" of "their own potential liability for allowing suspected illegal transactions to continue to take place" and their potential susceptibility to "money laundering prosecutions and/or hefty fines." Allusion to that "susceptibility" was the culminating and most ominous threat in the letter.

[C.] Does it matter whether the government acts systematically, setting up a pipeline for requests to the media? One can imagine courts being influenced by this, as they are in some other areas of the law; but I know of no First Amendment cases so holding.

[D.] Now in some other areas of constitutional law, this question of government requests to private actors is treated differently, at least by some courts. Say that you rummage through a roommate's papers, find evidence that he's committing a crime, and send it to the police. You haven't violated the Fourth Amendment, because you're a private actor. (Whether you might have committed some tort or crime is a separate question.) And the police haven't violated the Fourth Amendment, because they didn't perform the search. The evidence can be used against the roommate.

But say that the police ask you to rummage through the roommate's papers. That rummaging may become a search governed by the Fourth Amendment, at least in the eyes of some courts: "the government might violate a defendant's rights by 'instigat[ing]' or 'encourag[ing]' a private party to search a defendant on its behalf."

Likewise, "In the Fifth Amendment context, courts have held that the government might violate a defendant's rights by coercing or encouraging a private party to extract a confession from a criminal defendant." More broadly, the Supreme Court has said that "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."

So maybe there's room for courts to shift to a model where the government's mere encouragement of private speech restrictions is enough to constitute a First Amendment violation on the government's part.

[E.] One more twist, relevant to the Trump lawsuits: Say that the government is found to have coerced a private entity into restricting plaintiff's speech. Can plaintiff sue the private entity, or can he just sue the government?

It might be quite sensible to say that the private entity is the victim of government coercion, and shouldn't be blamed for going along with it. After all, if you are free to do something on your own, and you do it, you couldn't be sued. Why should the government's coercion that forces you to do something that you have the right to do on your own make you liable (as opposed to making the government liable)?

Yet there's at least a plausible argument that the coerced intermediary could indeed be sued. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. (1970) (concluding that "the decision of an owner of a restaurant to discriminate on the basis of race under the compulsion of state law offends the Fourteenth Amendment"); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n (1989) ("A railroad that complies with the provisions of Subpart C of the regulations [requiring drug testing of certain employees] does so by compulsion of sovereign authority, and the lawfulness of its acts is controlled by the Fourth Amendment."); Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. (9th Cir. 1987) ("With this threat [of prosecuting defendant for allowing plaintiff's dial-a-porn], Arizona 'exercised coercive power' over Mountain Bell and thereby converted its otherwise private conduct into state action for purposes of 1983"). There's a lot more that can be said about the matter, but I just thought that I'd note here that such liability for the intermediary is at least potentially available.

View post:
When Government Urges Private Entities to Restrict Others' Speech - Reason

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday visited the southern border and warned that the surge in migrants and deadly drugs like fentanyl is having, or will have, a knock-on effect in other states.

Just the scale of this in terms of the stress of public resources, school, medical other things, this is going to greatly impact communities throughout Florida and I think across the country," DeSantis said at a press conference.

TEXAS GOV. ABBOTT SLAMS FEDS FOR COMPLETE ABANDONMENT OF BORDER LAWS AMID UNPRECEDENTED MIGRANT SURGE

"This is a situation where all states need to be a part of the process of stepping up," Abbott said.

The pair spoke in the Del Rio Sector as the Florida governor visited the Lone Star state to see the border crisis in person. He met with Abbott and was briefed by law enforcement officials on the crisis, and also paid visits to the border wall and areas affected by the crisis.

There were more than 188,000 migrant encounters in June alone, bringing the total number of migrant encounters in fiscal year 2021 to more than a million. Additionally drugs like fentanyl have been seized in greater quantities, with a 12% increase in June and 78% more seizures in FY 2021 than all of FY2020.

DeSantis noted that his state is having a problem with methamphetamine, and said that 95% of it came from the border.

MIGRANT ARRESTS AT SOUTHERN BORDER ROSE YET AGAIN IN JUNE TO 188,000, TOPPING 1M THIS FISCAL YEAR

"What happens at the border happens here today, but it will be happening in these other states tomorrow or next week or next month," Abbott said.

DeSantis said that he was shocked to hear from officials in Del Rio that the majority of the migrants being processed into the U.S. had Florida as their final destination.

"70 percent of the people they have interdicted said their ultimate destination is the state of Florida, so this is something, whenever theres a wave across the border, Im not saying it's 70 percent in every part of the border but here it's the majority," he said.

TRUMP-ERA DHS OFFICIALS WARN OF CATASTROPHIC RESULTS IF ADMINISTRATION ENDS TITLE 42 BORDER EXPULSIONS

Both Abbott and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey had issued a call for help from other states, asking them to send manpower and law enforcement to help at the border. Florida was one of those states that responded, along with states like South Dakota and Iowa.

Texas has launched a number of efforts to stem the crisis, including putting down a $250 million down payment on a new wall construction project after the Biden administration abruptly ended the project in January.

Additionally, it has cleared out jails to hold more illegal immigrants and made efforts to arrest those coming in illegally. Abbott said Operation Lone Star had resulted in the apprehension of 50,000 illegal aliens, 2,000 criminal illegal immigrants, and disrupted 40 stash houses.

DeSantis said Floridian personnel have helped apprehend more than 2,800 illegal immigrants, with 100 arrests for felonies including human trafficking, drug smuggling and vehicle theft.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The two governors, both Republicans, blame the Biden administration for the crisis -- pointing to the rollback of Trump-era policies like the border wall and the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), arguing that if those policies were brought back, the crisis would end.

"We appreciate you stepping up where the federal government wont," DeSantis told his Texan counterpart. "We understand how important this is to not just Texas but other states and we are absolutely going to see impacts in Florida and other states if we dont turn the tide on this."

Read the original post:
Govs. DeSantis and Abbott, in border visit, warn migrant crisis ripple effect on other states - Fox News

Within 24 hours the migrant crisis along Britains South coast will pass an unwelcome milestone. Last year a total of 8,410 desperate men, women and children successfully made the dangerous 21 mile (34km) crossing.

On Monday, when a record 430 migrants arrived on 14 boats, this years figure had risen to 8,159.

This means that since Brexit almost double the numbers of refugees have been risking their lives to enter the United Kingdom.

Today - Tuesday - the Mirror headed to Kent to report on the scale of the humanitarian crisis first-hand

Its 8am in the morning and one look out to sea confirms the forecast - perfect weather, with not a cloud or breath of wind in the sky.

What is your view on the migrant crisis, Brexit, and the Home Office's response? Join the discussion in the comment section

Image:

But these conditions are also perfect for the people smuggling gangs who have been launching boats up and down the coast of Northern France and Belgium during the early hours.

Sure enough, at 9am I receive an alert informing me the RNLI has dispatched a boat from its station in Dungeness. As I travel to the scene I hear the Border Forces patrol vessel is also at sea - a sure sign migrant boats are on their way towards shore.

At around 9.30am I watch as the first boat of the day arrives on the wide, shingle beach in Dungeness, Kent. A group of 32 men, mainly from Iran and North Africa, are shepherded by police away from their black dinghy, which is powered by an outboard motor.

One man named Ahmed, from Iran, tells me he and his friends paid 2,500-3000 Euros each for a place on the boat. A quick bit of maths shows this small inflatable has been worth almost 100,000 euros to the gangsters who control illegal immigration in Northern Europe.

Image:

Follow all the latest news by signing up to one of the Mirror's newsletters

Ahmed says they set off from France in the dead of night before making a ten hour journey across the channel. When I ask how safe the crossing was he tells me: very dangerous before adding simply: not nice trip.

The group, including one man wearing a Live or Die T-shirt, stumbles across the stony beach towards a makeshift processing centre at the Dungeness RNLI station.

Some shelter in the shade of the building while others stretch full length to sunbathe as they wait to be booked in by police.

A PC in a high-vis jacket is in charge of formally arresting the migrants. While searching one man and bagging up his possessions he tells him: You have entered the UK illegally - you are under arrest.

When the man replies I accept the copper laughs and tells colleagues and thats nice of him isnt it?.

The man is then asked his age - 37 - before being moved to sit in a separate area.

There is one moment of drama as a makeshift knife - a Stanley blade attached to a handle wrapped in duct tape - is discovered discarded on the floor.

Image:

At 10.30am a coach arrives ready to transport the men to a Home Office immigration centre. After receiving reports of another boat landing I leave the area as the next migrant stands up to be told: You have entered the UK illegally - you are under arrest.

Half a mile South along the beach I find another group of 12 men and boys sitting on the perimeter of the Dungeness nuclear power station.

In the shadow of a barbed-wire fence they are being guarded by four officers. Some are armed cops from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary while others are from Kent Police.

One Iranian man tells me his group left France almost the middle of the night for a 12 hour crossing. The 23-year-old, who did not want his name published, says he paid 2,000 euros for the trip.

Image:

He tells me: It was dangerous - awful. The man left his home country four years ago in the hope of a better life. He adds wearily: Its a long journey, Im so tired.

Monday saw the highest ever number of crossings in a single day, with 430 migrants landing successfully. I ask one armed PC whether they are expecting more today. Its got to be getting close now for sure, he admits.

The third boat - and the first containing women and children - arrives shortly after midday. With 42 migrants on board it is visibly listing to one side while being winched into the shallows.

Among the first to disembark is a dad who carries his young toddler under one arm while hanging onto the ladder. After being handed his welcome pack - a single Covid face mask - the man, from Kuwait, reveals in broken English that his family paid 8,000 euros for the crossing.

Image:

He looks exhausted as he recounts how his family - four kids and two parents - lived for one month in the camps of Northern France before making the nine hour trip.

Their entire possessions appear to be a small bundle of clothes. He tells me his daughters are 12 and 11 while his sons are aged seven and 20 months.

The seven-year-old plays with pebbles while walking up the beach while his younger brother is carried by mum. When I ask whether they can swim - miming breaststroke with my arms - the dad shakes his head and looks away.

His daughter adds firmly: no. They tell me they were protected by lifejackets. When asked whether the French authorities helped them cross the man shrugs. They dont know the politics and dont care.

Image:

As the other passengers disembark one man from Syria flashes me a tired smile before proclaiming I love England.

Another, Zakaria, 21, says he has arrived on the beach just 45 days after fleeing his native Iran. He paid 400 for the Channel crossing but didnt have money left for food. He adds: Its been four days now I didnt eat. Crossing the seas was very,

very dangerous. In the Aegean water [the Mediterranean] we was around five or six days in the water. We were 18 in a small wooden ship, if it sinks - we die.

But we are already ready for death, because it was living death in our country.

Image:

Zakaria, who travelled through Turkey, Italy and France, says he left Iran after being kicked out of school. He adds that his brother was attacked - possibly killed.

Speaking about his plans for the future he says: My family are in Iran, theres nothing I can do for them.

England is hope. I came because England is a modern country and I speak the language.

I think they treat us fairly here, we hope they will treat us as a human.

So we come here hoping for a new life, a new future.

I will try my best to become a science teacher.

In 2019 these types of landings were relatively rare events. But the surge in crossings since Brexit means processing migrants has become business as usual for the local emergency services.

The third landing at Dungeness was watched - and photographed - by around 20 tourists who had gathered on the beach.

Images of human suffering will now form part of their holiday albums.

I watched 86 people land on a half-mile stretch of beach in just three hours, and the scale of the crisis is worrying locals.

Landlady Mimi Durbridge, from the Jolly Fisherman pub, tells me she was left in tears after witnessing a similar landing earlier this year.

Mimi, herself a mum, says: It was one of the most heart-wrenching things Ive ever seen. There were a couple of men, a few women and some small children. They were five, six, seven years old - so old enough to know what was going on.

"It was a real eye opener for me, it was harrowing.

I was similarly moved watching the 20-month-old boy being carried ashore by his dad.

These types of images are usually associated with refugees fleeing war or natural disasters.

But with crossings rising daily they are set to become a familiar sight on British beaches - unless something is done.

Continued here:
Harrowing day in the life of a crisis as desperate migrants say 'England is hope' - The Mirror

WASHINGTON U.S. Senators Jim Risch and Mike Crapo (both R-Idaho) joined Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with 22 additional Senate Republican colleagues, in urging President Biden not to revoke Title 42, a critical tool implemented last year to protect public health.Issued by the Centers for Disease Control and enforced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Title 42 allows immigration officials to rapidly expel illegal immigrants and slow the spread of COVID-19 at the border.Media reports indicate the Administration plans to end this authority by the end of this month.

Ending this order will have a dire impact on the crisis already engulfing our southwestern border,wrote the Senators.We urge you in the strongest possible terms not to take this action. The administrations first priority must be to protect the American homeland.Allowing political considerations to overrule the clear public health threat created by the spread of COVID-19 at the border is reckless and irresponsible.

A copy of the letter can be foundhereand below:

Dear Mr. President,

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most significant public health crisis the United States has faced in our lifetime. Recent reports indicate the administration is considering immediately terminating the public health authority granted to immigration officials under Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 265, 268. Ending this order will have a dire impact on the crisis already engulfing our southwestern border. We urge you in the strongest possible terms not to take this action.

On March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order pursuant to its public health authority under Title 42. This order allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to immediately expel aliens who would otherwise be held in congregate settings, including Border Patrol Stations and land Ports of Entry, rather than process them under its traditional Title 8 authorities.

COVID-19 is a highly transmissible virus, and limiting the number of individuals held in close proximity is a completely justified measure while the threat of COVID-19 persists. This is why federal immigration officials continue making robust use of the Title 42 authority.

According to the most recent data, DHS expelled 112,302 migrants encountered along the southwest land border pursuant to the CDC Order in May 2021. This constitutes a dramatic increase over the 20,895 migrants expelled along the southwest land border the previous May. In contrast, 67,732 aliens encountered along the southwest land border were processed under DHSs traditional Title 8 authorities in May 2021, compared with 2,342 in May 2020.

Immigration facilities are overwhelmed. Revoking the authority of officials to rapidly expel illegal migrants under Title 42 without a clear plan in place to handle the stress this population will place on the system and on border communities will further exacerbate the crisis at the southwestern border.

Furthermore, your administration continues warning the American public about the dangers posed by the variants of COVID-19. Recently, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, made clear, This rapid rise is troubling. She went on to state that, The delta variant is surging in pockets of the country.

The Department of State also recently issued an advisory regarding travel to Mexicothe country through which the vast majority of migrants affected by the CDC Order passstating, Do not travel to Mexico due to COVID-19.[4]If the CDC and the State Department believe that the threat of COVID-19 is actually increasing (and specifically in Mexico), it is contradictory for the Biden Administration to simultaneously revoke the public health authority used by immigration officials to slow the spread of COVID-19.

The administrations first priority must be to protect the American homeland. Allowing political considerations to overrule the clear public health threat created by the spread of COVID-19 at the border is reckless and irresponsible.

We request the administration retain the order under 42 U.S.C. 265 and 268 until (1) the threat of COVID-19 variants is significantly reduced, (2) the administration has consulted with State, local, and tribal governments regarding any modification to this authority, and (3) policies have been implemented to bring the situation along the southwest land border under control and ensure that DHS and Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities will not be overwhelmed by sudden, large increases in the migrant population.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

# # #

Read more from the original source:
Risch, Crapo: Revoking Title 42 Will Have Dire Impact on Crisis at Southern Border - Jim Risch

Many Britons have questioned why the country is facing another migrant crisis after 430 asylum seekers landed on British shores on Monday, just months after the UK finally took back control of its borders from the EU.

The Home Office has said that at least 430 migrants crossed the English Channel from France on Monday with Britains heatwave providing ideal crossing conditions.

The figure marks a new daily record for migrant crossings in a single day and sees the total number of crossings this year nearly surpass the number registered in the entirety of 2020. The near 8,000 crossings so far in 2021 are around four times more than what was seen in all of 2019.

Continuing its tough rhetoric on Channel crossings, the Home Office told the BBC it was taking substantial steps to tackle the unacceptable problem of illegal migration.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has vowed to make illegal migration a thing of the past. The Nationality and Borders Bill, which has completed its second reading in the House of Commons, seeks to make illegal entry to the UK a crime punishable with four years in prison.

Government plans could also see asylum seekers sent to third countries to be processed. Denmark has already announced similar plans, with Rwanda being a potential processing location.

In late 2020 and earlier this year, the UK Home Office came under intense scrutiny after reports in the media about plans to send asylum seekers to far-flung British territories, including Ascension Island and even disused oil rigs.

However, Britains plans to take back its borders, a slogan and policy enabled by Brexit, is yet to come to fruition, angering many in the UK. Some took to Twitter to register their dismay at the number of dinghies landing on British shores on Monday.

For all those looking to immigrate to the UK. It is a lot cheaper and faster to simply cross the channel, one person wrote ironically on Twitter, adding that they could bypass NHS fees and other requirements for migration.

Another person asked why the government was taking away her freedom with the introduction of vaccine passports, but these migrants could illegally enter Britain with impunity.

However, not everyone was angry, some pointed out that the UK had the capacity to care for these people while another said she felt sorry for them, coming all the way to the UK to find theyre treated like animals.

Speaking on Monday evening during his first-ever show on GB News, Brexiteer Nigel Farage said that migrant crossings would once again become the biggest non-coronavirus story in the news this summer.

Farage struck a foreboding tone, warning once again about the costs and risks of illegal migration to the UK and the need for reform in the asylum system.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

See the original post here:
Britons shocked by new migrant crisis as 430 arrive on English shores in 1 day, a new record - RT